Dysfunctional Justice, UK

[Foreigner]

Interesting case where on appeal, woman succeeds in challenge to overturn her mother's will which left her estate to charities.

Who are judges to tell us who we can leave our money to? asks MAX HASTINGS | Daily Mail Online

 

[chelzmalee]

Interesting.

IMHO if you are of sound mind, your will should be respected. Whether you want to leave everything to your dog or your parents.

 

[JohnK]

That is quite disturbing. The law should not get involved where will is left even if there is a hint of injustice.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

I believe the UK is not alone in the courts getting involved in wills. I think we have something similar here in Australia.

 

[Mark3000]

Yet another example of how out of touch the legal system is. It's such a shame but so many people have no faith in the legal system. Judges are so out of touch

 

[Dr Ralph]

Interesting.

IMHO if you are of sound mind, your will should be respected. Whether you want to leave everything to your dog or your parents.

Unfortunately this isn't the view of the law. You need to provide for your family under the provisions of your Will or explain clearly why there is no need to or you don't want to.

 

[Dr Ralph]

Judges are so out of touch

This is simply untrue. I know many judges, some are even close friends. They are, for the most part, very ordinary people who do a very difficult job.

People who say this sort of thing usually have no understanding of the role of the court or the judicature in general.

You might want to do some checking on the concept of 'separation of powers' to understand the role of the court.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Yet another example of how out of touch the legal system is. It's such a shame but so many people have no faith in the legal system. Judges are so out of touch

I'm not sure there is much evidence to support that claim.

There is an interesting website: You Be The Judge

Viewers are presented with four different cases of lawbreaking. Facts are presented, and you are asked to determine a sentence.

IIRC, the outcome is that many (might be 'most') people select lighter sentences from the range of options than those actually imposed by judges.

Sure there are some decisions which people might think are questionable... but what gets reported often differs from the reality. Undoubtedly sometimes mistakes are made, but in general, unless you read the full transcript of a case, you are unlikely to be able to reach an informed opinion.

 

[Dr Ralph]

I'm not sure there is much evidence to support that claim.

There is an interesting website: You Be The Judge

Viewers are presented with four different cases of lawbreaking. Facts are presented, and you are asked to determine a sentence.

IIRC, the outcome is that many (might be 'most') people select lighter sentences from the range of options than those actually imposed by judges.

Sure there are some questionable decisions. But what gets reported often differs from the reality.

Well said Mel. Judges are an easy target as they rarely speak publically or defend themselves.

As I said above I know many judges and there's nothing remarkable about any of them. They are very aware of what is happening in the wider world. The are members of society just like you and me. They eat at restaurants, read newspapers, drink at the pub and shop at the major grocery chains. To say they are out of touch is simply a way of saying you really don't understand their role.

 

[Mark3000]

Unfortunately this isn't the view of the law.

And that is why so many people resent "the law"
Most people would believe that they should have the freedom to decide what they should do with their money.
This is not someone who did not leave money to their 4 year old - we are talking about an adult child here.
Why should the elderly woman's wishes be disrespected here?
Why should she be forced against her wishes to leave money to her adult child?

 

[MEL_Traveller]

And that is why so many people resent "the law"
Most people would believe that they should have the freedom to decide what they should do with their money.
This is not someone who did not leave money to their 4 year old - we are talking about an adult child here.
Why should the elderly woman's wishes be disrespected here?
Why should she be forced against her wishes to leave money to her adult child?

The decision in this case is based on the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act of 1975. That's an act of Parliament... not a judge making up the law.

The fact is that people aren't free to make unfettered decisions when it comes to their will. The law is there to provide for certain parties in some circumstances.

The original article is sensationalist, but would have benefited from some research and actually reading the case.

 

[JohnK]

I'm not sure there is much evidence to support that claim.

Don't need evidence. Judges, magistrates, lawyers are so out of touch with reality it's beyond belief. They live in their own little world oblivious to what's going on around them.

I have witnessed it myself. Scary.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Don't need evidence. Judges, magistrates, lawyers are so out of touch with reality it's beyond belief. They live in their own little world oblivious to what's going on around them.

I have witnessed it myself. Scary.

Your observations are a highly personal, and no doubt influenced by your perceptions in relation to the specific case you have in mind.

However, without knowing the specifics of the case, it's perhaps hard to explain the grounds and considerations that would have been taken into account.

More generally - if you actually spend some time to complete the sample sentencing exercises I gave in the link above, you'll find judges are harder than the public when it comes to sentencing.

 

[james4321]

Don't need evidence. Judges, magistrates, lawyers are so out of touch with reality it's beyond belief. They live in their own little world oblivious to what's going on around them.

I have witnessed it myself. Scary.

Bit like politicians really

 

[JohnK]

The decision in this case is based on the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act of 1975. That's an act of Parliament... not a judge making up the law.

The fact is that people aren't free to make unfettered decisions when it comes to their will. The law is there to provide for certain parties in some circumstances.

If there is such a law it is wrong. Totally wrong.

Let's say you have a child and in their 20's they rebel, cause you serious grief and financial loss as well as embarrassment. You disown them. You do not have any contact for the remainder of your life.

You rightly leave them out of your will. They have no entitlements to any part of your will. The law needs to stay out of it. Has to stay out of it. Your wishes must be respected.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

If there is such a law it is wrong. Totally wrong.

Let's say you have a child and in their 20's they rebel, cause you serious grief and financial loss as well as embarrassment. You disown them. You do not have any contact for the remainder of your life.

You rightly leave them out of your will. They have no entitlements to any part of your will. The law needs to stay out of it. Has to stay out of it. Your wishes must be respected.

I have given you the name of the Act so there is indeed such a law.

Have you read the Act before stating it is wrong? Do you know whether it does or doesn't exclude the circumstances you gave as an example?

The Act has been around since 1975 - 40 years. And someone is only complaining now?

Here is a link to the legislation: Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975

 

[JohnK]

Have you read the Act before stating it is wrong? Do you know whether it does or doesn't exclude the circumstances you gave as an example?

The Act has been around since 1975 - 40 years. And someone is only complaining now?

Sorry too confusing for me.

 

[russ]

Sorry too confusing for me.

Here's the NSW legislation for you: SUCCESSION ACT 2006

 

[Limewood]

When I see a heading "Dysfunctional Justice" I think of the sentences handed down here in OZ like a slap on the wrist like.. you stole, you robbed but go home and be a good boy, but mostly violent crimes, the sentences are a joke, then they get remissions and many get out serving a third of the time, and a life sentence for murder does not mean life. I'd love to see a public poll on this subject.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

When I see a heading "Dysfunctional Justice" I think of the sentences handed down here in OZ like a slap on the wrist like.. you stole, you robbed but go home and be a good boy, but mostly violent crimes, the sentences are a joke, then they get remissions and many get out serving a third of the time, and a life sentence for murder does not mean life. I'd love to see a public poll on this subject.

Again... this is often (not always) down to perception, and doesn't reflect reality.

The link I provided above to the sentencing advisory website invites members of the public to listen to the facts of real cases and then determine the sentence they think is appropriate.

You'll be surprised with the results! The public are far more lenient than judges.

Take the test and then start to draw conclusions. Sensationalist media articles will skew any poll.